SAMPLING

The following section presents the sampling procedures employed in this study.

3.3.2.1 SELECTION OF YOUTH-HEADED FAMILIES

Babbie (2010: 190) refers to a sample as a group of people that the researcher selects from a defined population and these are the individuals about whom information will be collected. Neuman (2011:220) argues that the relevance to the research topic rather than the representativeness of the cases determines the way in which the people to be studied, are selected in qualitative research. In support of this view, Mason (2002:121) states that the sample that the researcher selects, must provide the researcher with a meaningful context that will allow him or her to establish the ideas and data needed to obtain the research goals and objectives. Neuman (2011:222) refers to this type of sampling as purposive or judgement sampling. Neuman further states that purposive sampling is most commonly used in exploratory research. In the current study, purposive sampling was used to select youth-headed families. In order to select a sample purposively, the researcher should first decide upon effective ways of entering the site to be studied (Merriam, 2002:12).

51

Each organisation that agreed to assist was given the inclusion criteria to use in identifying potential research participants for inclusion in the study. The first inclusion criterion was that all the family group participants must reside in a youth-headed family and/or household within Port Elizabeth. However, this proved to be challenging, because in some residential areas, I was informed that there were no longer any child- or youth-headed households, as the children and young people within these households had been integrated into their extended families. It was only within the Xhosa communities that the existence of youth-headed families was overtly acknowledged. Van Dijk (2008:6) reports that some communities may be reluctant to acknowledge the existence of child- and youth-headed households, for various reasons, while in some cases, the existence of such households may be a temporary measure only.

The second criterion was that the head of the family must be between the ages of 12 and 18 years. This criterion needed to be adapted, as became clear during the fieldwork and after consultations with some organisations working with families in this context. The age of the head of the family was consequently adapted to 15 – 28 years. The motivation for this change was the fact that some young people who were the heads of their families and were between the ages of 21 and 28 had been heading their families since the age of 15 years. This change was also in line with the views articulated in the National Youth Development Policy Framework (2002 – 2007). According to this Framework, the term „youth‟ has a range of different meanings and connotations within the South African historical, social, cultural and political context. In this vein, Ansell (2005:22) argues that the term „youth‟ is a social construct that is interpreted, understood and socially institutionalised differently, based on the circumstances and vulnerability that young people face.

Thirdly, the organisations were asked to select families whom they perceived to be coping with their circumstances. Finally, a criterion was that participants had to participate voluntarily. This criterion was important, due to the fact that participants were recruited by organisations that rendered services to them. My concerns were around issues of power differences and coercion (whether perceived or real) or inducement; and that some participants might feel obliged to participate out of fear of

52

losing the services, should they choose not to participate. Voluntary participation was emphasised from the onset and after the initial contact, participants were informed of their right to withdraw from the research or refuse participation at any stage without any repercussions to them.

Care workers from the organisations who agreed to assist with the identification of youth-headed families accompanied the researcher to the families during the initial contact, for the purpose of introducing the researcher to the families and to enlist their participation in the research study. In one instance, the care worker insisted on being present during the interviewing process, even after the researcher had explained the importance of confidentiality. As a researcher, I intended to use this visit to build rapport with the family and to discuss ethical issues. Based on this incident, I arranged a briefing meeting with the care workers, during which some of them articulated the need to protect their „clients‟ from possible emotional harm. However, once the ethical issues were addressed, there was greater understanding of the research process, which led to better co-operation between the researcher and the care workers.

A total of six (6) families were interviewed, from the Kwazakhele, New Brighton, Gqebera (Walmer) and Zwide townships. Initially five families were selected to participate in the study, with a total of seventeen members. In addition to the five families, a sixth family with two members participated, recruited by means of the snowball sampling procedure. The researcher was led to this family by one of the members of the families who had already participated in the study. This was possible because of interaction between families through a mentoring programme implemented by an NGO in Port Elizabeth. Almost all children and young people within the families were involved in the study. The first family comprised three people; the second comprised three members (but only two members participated, as the other member was away at their rural home) while the rest of the families comprised four to five members each. The study sample included nineteen participants in total.

53

3.3.2.2 SELECTION OF COMMUNITY MEMBERS

Four townships in Port Elizabeth, namely the Gqebera, New Brighton, KwaZakhele and Zwide Townships, were identified by the researcher as containing youth-headed families, after consultation with service providers. However, only two communities were approached, following a request from two youth-headed families that their neighbours not be involved in the study. Community developers from a Non-profit Organisation offering care and support to vulnerable children and young people, as well as families and individuals affected and infected by HIV and AIDS in Nelson Mandela Bay, facilitated entry into the community. These community developers introduced the researcher to the leadership structures within the two communities. A formal written request for assistance with the research was sent to the leadership structures of the two communities containing information about the study. The selection criteria used for the selection of community members were that participants had to be community members and/or neighbours in the specific residential areas within which the youth-headed families resided.

The leadership structure of one of the communities invited the researcher to a community meeting in order to inform the community members about the research aim, as well as to invite community members to participate in the study as research participants. Two social work students were also invited to this meeting, as they were planning a community outreach programme. As a researcher, I was given an opportunity to introduce myself and to share information about the research aims. Whilst I was sharing this information, community members started to share information about the child-headed households in their neighbourhood, their views about these households, and the support that they were providing to these households. The community leader then advised me to use this opportunity to gather some of the information I needed for the study. His motivation was that it might be difficult to reconvene the community meeting at a later stage. The two social work students assisted with note taking, whilst I facilitated information sharing. The care workers from the same Non-profit Organisation also facilitated entry into the second community. During this time, I was informed by the community developer working in

54

that community that I might be required to collect the information immediately after a community meeting, which was scheduled on that same day.

3.3.2.3 SELECTION OF SERVICE PROVIDERS

The criterion for inclusion was that the organisation had to render services to youth- headed families. Two organisations (NPOs) with care workers and counsellors operating in different communities, five Community-based Organisations/Faith-based Organisation (FBOs), a community health and welfare initiative and the Department of Social Development met the criteria for inclusion, and all participated in this study. In total, twenty-four care-givers, counsellors and an assistant manager participated in the study.

The organisations were required to:

 render a service(s) or have rendered services to youth-headed families within the previous three to five years;

 be willing to send representatives to participate voluntarily in the focus group interviews.

The sampling in the three sample groups was guided by the recommendation of Guba and Lincoln (2005), namely to continue to recruit study participants until the point of saturation or redundancy has been reached. This was evidenced by the examination of data that yielded the same or similar material to that which had already been discovered and coded.